4,148
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review Article

Assistive technology needs, access and coverage, and related barriers and facilitators in the WHO European region: a scoping review

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, , , ORCID Icon & show all
Pages 474-485 | Received 19 Jan 2022, Accepted 03 Jul 2022, Published online: 29 Jul 2022

References

  • WHO. World report on disability. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2011. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.
  • Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2229–2230.
  • Desmond D, Layton N, Bentley J, et al. Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):437–444.
  • Layton N, Mont D, Puli L, et al. Access to assistive technology during the COVID-19 global pandemic: voices of users and families. IJERPH. 2021;18(21):11273.
  • Borg J, Lindström A, Larsson S. Assistive technology in developing countries: national and international responsibilities to implement the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Lancet. 2009;374(9704):1863–1865.
  • Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren P-O. The right to assistive technology: for whom, for what, and by whom? Disabil Soc. 2011;26(2):151–167.
  • MacLachlan M, McVeigh J, Cooke M, et al. Intersections between systems thinking and market shaping for assistive technology: the SMART (systems-market for assistive and related technologies) thinking matrix. IJERPH. 2018;15(12):2627.
  • ATscale. The case for investing in assistive technology. Geneva: ATscale, 2020. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://atscale2030.org/investment-case.
  • Abualghaib O, Groce N, Simeu N, et al. Making visible the invisible: why disability-disaggregated data is vital to “leave no-one behind.” Sustainability. 2019;11(11):3091.
  • MacLachlan M, Banes D, Bell D, et al. Assistive technology policy: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):454–466.
  • Danemayer J, Boggs D, Ramos VD, et al. Estimating need and coverage for five priority assistive products: a systematic review of global population-based research. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(1):e007662.
  • WHO Regional Office for Europe: facts on disability. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/disability-and-rehabilitation/data-and-statistics/facts-on-disability.
  • Boggs D, Kuper H, Mactaggart I. Estimating assistive technology need through population-based surveys: an analysis of data from Cameroon and India. In: WHO. Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation, et al. 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization. Volume 1. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330371.
  • Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of national health service users. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(4):516–526.
  • Cullen K, McAnaney D, Dolphin C, et al. Research on the provision of assistive technology in Ireland and other countries to support independent living across the life cycle. Dublin, Ireland: Work Research Centre; 2012.
  • Parkin C, Hatzidimitriadou E, Manship S, et al. A survey of assistive technology (AT) knowledge and experiences of healthcare professionals in the UK and France: challenges and opportunities for workforce development. In: AAATE 2019 Conference. Tech Disabil. 31: Special issue [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://aaate2019.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2019/08/AAATE2019_Proceedings.pdf.
  • Kylberg M, Löfqvist C, Tomsone S, et al. A European perspective on the service delivery systems for assistive technology – differences and similarities between Latvia and Sweden. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2015;30(1):51–67.
  • Henschke C. Provision and financing of assistive technology devices in Germany: a bureaucratic odyssey? The case of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Health Policy. 2012;105(2–3):176–184.
  • World Health Assembly. Seventy-first World Health Assembly. Improving access to assistive technology; 2018.
  • Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
  • Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
  • Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–146.
  • Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
  • Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Washington Group Short Set of Disability Questions. Hyattsville (MD): Washington Group on Disability Statistics. [cited 2021 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/wg-short-set-on-functioning-wg-ss.
  • WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
  • Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Washington (DC): Sage Publications; 2016.
  • Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
  • Al-Tayar R, Humbert T, Di Pietro L, et al. A rapid assessment on access to assistive technology in the World Health Organization’s European Region. In: Layton N, Borg J (ed.). Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
  • Dupraz J, Andersen-Ranberg K, Fors S, et al. Use of healthcare services and assistive devices among centenarians: results of the cross-sectional, international 5-COOP study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e034296.
  • Abdellaoui A, Tran Ba Huy P. Success and failure factors for hearing-aid prescription: results of a French National Survey. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2013;130(6):313–319.
  • Bisgaard N, Ruf S. Findings from EuroTrak surveys from 2009 to 2015: hearing loss prevalence, hearing aid adoption, and benefits of hearing aid use. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(3S):451–461.
  • Chupina K. Constraints in access to assistive technologies – and communication – for hard-of-hearing people in the Russian Federation and in Germany. Disabil Stud Quart. 2011;31(4).
  • National Disability Authority: assistive technology usage and unmet need amongst people with disabilities in Ireland. Dublin: National Disability Authority; 2015.
  • Ingo E, Brännström KJ, Andersson G, et al. Measuring motivation using the transtheoretical (stages of change) model: a follow-up study of people who failed an online hearing screening. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(Suppl. 3):S52–S58.
  • Öberg M, Marcusson J, Nägga K, et al. Hearing difficulties, uptake, and outcomes of hearing aids in people 85 years of age. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(2):108–115.
  • Turunen-Taheri S, Carlsson P-I, Johnson A-C, et al. Severe-to-profound hearing impairment: demographic data, gender differences and benefits of audiological rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(23):2766–2774.
  • Mishra S, Pupulin A, Ekman B, et al. National priority assistive product list development in low resource countries: lessons learned from Tajikistan. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(8):857–864.
  • Benova L, Grundy E, Ploubidis GB. Socioeconomic position and health-seeking behavior for hearing loss among older adults in England. GERONB. 2015;70(3):443–452.
  • Davis A, Smith P. Adult hearing screening: health policy issues – what happens next? Am J Audiol. 2013;22(1):167–170.
  • Sawyer CS, Armitage CJ, Munro KJ, et al. Biopsychosocial classification of hearing health seeking in adults aged over 50 years in England. Ear Hear. 2020;41(5):1215–1225.
  • UNICEF. Situation analysis on children and adults with disabilities in Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: United Nations; 2019.
  • Brandt M, Truckenbrod C, Meigen C, et al. Impaired visual acuity caused by uncorrected refractive errors and amblyopia in a German Paediatric Cohort. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021;41(1):42–52.
  • Dawes P, Dickinson C, Emsley R, et al. Vision impairment and dual sensory problems in middle age. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(4):479–488.
  • Donaldson LA, Karas M, O'Brien D, et al. Findings from an opt-in eye examination service in English special schools. Is vision screening effective for this population? PLOS One. 2019;14(3):e0212733.
  • Pilling RF, Outhwaite L. Are all children with visual impairment known to the eye clinic? Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(4):472–474.
  • Shickle D, Griffin M. Why don’t older adults in England go to have their eyes examined? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(1):38–45.
  • Toufeeq A, Oram AJ. School-entry vision screening in the United Kingdom: practical aspects and outcomes. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(4):210–216.
  • Woodhouse JM, Davies N, McAvinchey A, et al. Ocular and visual status among children in special schools in Wales: the burden of unrecognised visual impairment. Arch Dis Child. 2014;99(6):500–504.
  • Funke A, Grehl T, Großkreutz J, et al. [Provision of assistive devices in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Analysis of 3 years case management in an internet-based supply network]. Nervenarzt. 2015;86(8):1007–1017.
  • Funke A, Spittel S, Grehl T, et al. Provision of assistive technology devices among people with ALS in Germany: a platform-case management approach. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2018;19(5–6):342–350.
  • Creemers H, Beelen A, Grupstra H, et al. The provision of assistive devices and home adaptations to patients with ALS in The Netherlands: Patients’ perspectives. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2014;15(5–6):420–425.
  • Ebel J, Focsa T, Grigoras S, et al. Mapping of wheelchair provision and usage in Moldova. Chisinau: Government of Moldova; 2020.
  • Florio J, Arnet U, Gemperli A, et al. Need and use of assistive devices for personal mobility by individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39(4):461–470.
  • Hertig-Godeschalk A, Gemperli A, Arnet U, et al. Availability and need of home adaptations for personal mobility among individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2018;41(1):91–101.
  • UNICEF. Turkmenistan survey and situation analysis of the boys and girls with disabilities in Turkmenistan. 2015. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://p4ec.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Report-Disability-Survey-FINAL.pdf.
  • Furtado S, Briggs T, Fulton J, et al. Patient experience after lower extremity amputation for sarcoma in England: a national survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(12):1171–1190.
  • Löfqvist C, Slaug B, Ekström H, et al. Use, non-use and perceived unmet needs of assistive technology among Swedish People in the third age. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(3):195–201.
  • Finlayson J, Jackson A, Mantry D, et al. The provision of aids and adaptations, risk assessments, and incident reporting and recording procedures in relation to injury prevention for adults with intellectual disabilities: cohort study. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2015;59(6):519–529.
  • Corradi F, Antonelli F. Progetto PCT – percorso di counseling con tecnologia per persone con disabilità [PCT project – counselling path with technology for people with disabilities]. Rome, Italy: Leonarda Vaccari Institute; 2014.
  • Pels EGM, Aarnoutse EJ, Ramsey NF, et al. Estimated prevalence of the target population for brain-computer interface neurotechnology in The Netherlands. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(7):677–685.
  • Creer S, Enderby P, Judge S, et al. Prevalence of people who could benefit from augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the UK: determining the need. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016;51(6):639–653.
  • Elliott E, Newton J, Rewaj P, et al. An epidemiological profile of dysarthria incidence and assistive technology use in the living population of people with MND in Scotland. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2020;21(1–2):116–122.
  • Enderby P, Judge S, Creer S, et al. Beyond the anecdote: examining the need for, and provision of, AAC in the United Kingdom. UK: Communication Matters; 2013. [cited 2020 Jul 30]. Available from: http://www.communicationmatters.org.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/projects/aac_evidence_base/2013_AAC_Evidence_Base_Beyond_the_Anecdote.pdf.
  • Judge S, Enderby P, Creer S, et al. Provision of powered communication aids in the United Kingdom. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(3):181–187.
  • Judge S, Johnson V. Local service provision of augmentative and alternative communication and communication aids in England. TAD. 2017;29(3):121–128.
  • McNicholl A, Desmond D, Gallagher P. Assistive technologies, educational engagement and psychosocial outcomes among students with disabilities in higher education. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;0:1–9.
  • Zakaryan G, Yeritsyan M, Davtyan S, et al. Evaluation of rehabilitation services for children in Armenia: rapid assessment analysis and mapping. UNICEF; 2019. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.unicef.org/armenia/media/7421/file/Report%20on%20Evaluation%20of%20Rehabilitation%20Services%20for%20Children%20in%20Armenia.pdf.
  • Boot FH, MacLachlan M, Dinsmore J. Are there differences in factors influencing access and continued use of assistive products for people with intellectual disabilities living in group homes? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(2):173–182.
  • Demain S, Burridge J, Ellis-Hill C, et al. Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:334.
  • WHO. Assistive technology in Tajikistan: situational analysis. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2019.
  • Goriainova A, Pishnyak A, Khabirova E. The determinants of the development of Russian assistive technologies market: analysis of experts’ interviews. Qualitative Rep. 2020;25:3019–3044.
  • Blanchard P, Strohl-Maffesoli H, Vincent B. Evaluation de la prise en charge des aides techniques pour les personnes âgées dépendantes et les personnes handicapées [Assessment of assistive technology coverage for older adults with decreased autonomy and persons with disabilities]. Paris (France): Inspection générale des affaires sociales; 2013.
  • McCabe C. Situation assessment: people with disabilities in Azerbaijan. Baku: UNICEF; 2011.
  • Mishra S, DeMuth S, Sabharwal S, et al. Disability and rehabilitation in Tajikistan: development of a multisectoral national programme to leave no one behind. Public Health Panor. 2018;4:202–209.
  • Morrow E, Bowers R. Post-stroke ankle-foot orthoses: examining referral trends in the Scottish Multi-Disciplinary Team. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(2):521–533.
  • Newton L, Dickinson C, Gibson G, et al. Exploring the views of GPs, people with dementia and their carers on assistive technology: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e011132.
  • Nugraha B, Tani K, Gutenbrunner C. Rehabilitation service assessment and workforce capacity building in Albania – a civil society approach. IJERPH. 2020;17(19):7300.
  • Nyberg T, Johansson S. Framtidens hjälpmedel i Skåne. Malmö (Sweden): Funktionsrätt Skåne; 2020. [cited 2021 Nov 23]. Available from: http://funktionsrattskane.se/framtidens-hjalpmedel-i-skane.
  • Ocepek J, Prosic Z, Vidmar G. Vloga medicinsko tehnicnih pripomockov pri starostnikih – rezultati ankete [assistive technology and its role among the elderly – a survey]. Informatica Medica Slovenica. 2012;17:9–15.
  • Pedersen H, Kermit PS, Söderström S. You have to argue the right way”: user involvement in the service delivery process for assistive activity technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(8):840–850.
  • Gallagher A, Cleary G, Clifford A, et al. “Unknown world of wheelchairs.” A mixed methods study exploring experiences of wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision for people with spinal cord injury in an Irish context. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44:1946–1958.
  • Disability Human Rights Observatory. Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Portugal. Submission to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the responses to the list of issues by the Disability and Human Rights Observatory. Lisbon (Portugal); 2016. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=18543&LangID=E.
  • Tuikka A-M, Sachdeva N. Experiences from assistive technology services and their delivery in Finland. In Kar AK, Ilavarasan PV, Gupta MP, et al. editors. Digital nations – smart cities, innovation, and sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 16–22.
  • Campling NC, Pitts DG, Knight PV, et al. A qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of telehealthcare devices (ii) barriers to uptake of telehealthcare devices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):466.
  • Menich N. Challenges in access to assistive technology in Hungary. In: Layton N, Borg J (ed.). Global perspectives on assistive technology: proceedings of the GReAT Consultation 2019. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
  • Adolfsson P, Lindstedt H, Pettersson I, et al. Perception of the influence of environmental factors in the use of electronic planning devices in adults with cognitive disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(6):493–500.
  • Gowran RJ, Clifford A, Gallagher A, et al. Wheelchair and seating assistive technology provision: a gateway to freedom. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44:370–381.
  • WHO. Provision of wheelchairs in Tajikistan: economic assessment of alternative options. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
  • Enable Ireland. Assistive technology for people with disabilities and older people. Dublin: Enable Ireland; 2016.
  • Hosking J, Gibson C. Impact of the single point of access referral system to reduce waiting times and improve clinical outcomes in an assistive technology service. J Med Eng Technol. 2016;40(5):265–269.
  • Social Insurance Board. RFK-kasutamine meditsiinilises, sotsiaalses ja tööalases rehabilitatsioonis ning abivahendi vajaduse hindamisel, Pilootprojekt 2016–2020 [Implementation of ICF in medical, social and vocational rehabilitation and assistive technology assessment, pilot project 2016–2020]. Tallin (Estonia): Republic of Estonia Social Insurance Board; 2020. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.sotsiaalkindlustusamet.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/Projektid/rfk_loppraport_aprill2020.pdf.
  • Tedesco Triccas L, McLening B, Hendrie W, et al. Is there a standard procedure for assessing and providing assistive devices for people with neuro-disabling conditions in United Kingdom? A nation-wide survey. Disabil Health J. 2019;12(1):93–97.
  • Kayabaşoğlu G, Kaymaz R, Erkorkmaz Ü, et al. Study of hearing aid effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2015;25(3):158–162.
  • Laplante-Lévesque A, Knudsen LV, Preminger JE, et al. Hearing help-seeking and rehabilitation: perspectives of adults with hearing impairment. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(2):93–102.
  • Leamon S, Hayden C, Lee H, et al. Improving access to optometry services for people at risk of preventable sight loss: a qualitative study in five UK locations. J Public Health. 2014;36(4):667–673.
  • Ravneberg B. Usability and abandonment of assistive technology. J Assist Technol. 2012;6(4):259–269.
  • Artikova V. Central Asia Region: desk review on disability, part 2. Falls Church (VA): New Edition Consulting; 2015.
  • Patiëntenfederatie Nederland. Rapport meldactie hulpmiddelen. Ervaringen met keuze, aanvraag, levering en gebruik van hulpmiddelen [Report action assistive technology. Experiences with choice, request, delivery and use of assistive technology devices]. Utrecht (Netherlands): Patient Federation Netherlands; 2019. [cited 2021 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.patientenfederatie.nl/downloads/rapporten/155-rapport-meldactie-hulpmiddelen/file.
  • Panteli D, Henschke C, Kroneman M, et al. Assistive devices: regulation and coverage in five European countries. Rapid Review (No. 8). Toronto, Canada: North American Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2018.
  • Claesen E, Pryce H. An exploration of the perspectives of help-seekers prescribed hearing aids. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2012;13(3):279–284.
  • Bennion A, Forshaw MJ. Insights from the experiences of older people with hearing impairment in the United Kingdom: recommendations for nurse-led rehabilitation. Int J Older People Nurs. 2013;8(4):270–278.
  • Rolfe C, Gardner B. Experiences of hearing loss and views towards interventions to promote uptake of rehabilitation support among UK adults. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(11):666–673.
  • Sansam K, O'Connor RJ, Neumann V, et al. Clinicians’ perspectives on decision making in lower limb amputee rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(5):447–453.
  • McCaughan D, Booth A, Jackson C, et al. Orthotic management of instability of the knee related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders: qualitative interview study of patient perspectives. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e029313.
  • Mycielski J, Turczyn P, Tarnacka B. Compliance with prescriptions for wheelchairs, walking aids, orthotics, and pressure-relieving devices in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Eur J Physic Rehabil Med. 2020;56:160–168.
  • De-Rosende-Celeiro I, Torres G, Seoane-Bouzas M, et al. Exploring the use of assistive products to promote functional independence in self-care activities in the bathroom. PLOS One. 2019;14(4):e0215002.
  • World Bank. World Bank country and lending groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2021. [cited 2021 Nov 23]. Available from: http://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.
  • WHO. Rapid assistive technology assessment tool (rATA). Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2021.
  • WHO. Assistive technology capacity assessment (ATA-C): instruction manual. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2021.
  • Smith RO. The emergence and emergency of assistive technology outcomes research methodology. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefit. 2016;10:19–37.
  • Matter R, Harniss M, Oderud T, et al. Assistive technology in resource-limited environments: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):105–114.
  • Khasnabis C, Holloway C, MacLachlan M. The digital and assistive technologies for ageing initiative: learning from the GATE initiative. Lancet Health Longev. 2020;1(3):e94–e95.
  • Ebuenyi ID, Kafumba J, Smith EM, et al. Empirical research and available data on assistive technology for persons with disabilities in Malawi: a review. Assist Technol. 2021.
  • Black N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323(7307):275–279.
  • WHO. Global research, innovation and education in assistive technology: great summit 2017 report. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2017.
  • Hästbacka E, Nygård M, Nyqvist F. Barriers and facilitators to societal participation of people with disabilities: a scoping review of studies concerning European Countries. Alter. 2016;10(3):201–220.
  • Smith EM, Toro Hernandez ML, Ebuenyi ID, et al. Assistive technology use and provision during COVID-19: results from a rapid global survey. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(6):747–756.
  • Puli L, Layton N, Mont D, et al. Assistive technology provider experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. IJERPH. 2021;18(19):10477.
  • Irgens I, Bach B, Rekand T, et al. Optimal management of health care for persons with disability related to spinal cord injury: learning from the Sunnaas model of telerehabilitation. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2020;6(1):88.